Argument for God

[quinn]

Discuss problems with my premises..

P: Evil exists
Q: Absolute morality exists
R: God exists

P -> Q
~R -> ~Q
P
...therefore
R

Show R assertion
1. ~R assumption (ID)
2. ~R -> ~Q premise
3. ~Q 1, 2 MP
4. P premise
5. P -> Q premise
6. Q 4, 5 MP

lol.. it highlight the difference between logic, semantic and truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Discuss problems with my premises..

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Your logic is valid, of course. I'll discuss your premises briefly:

¬P
¬Q
¬R

¬[](P --> Q)
¬[](¬R --> ¬Q)

( "[]" = "necessarily" )

[maurile]

God has nothing to do with absolute morality. In fact, the notion that something is moral or immoral just because God says so is an example of relative morality. Absolute moral rules would be true independent of whether anybody believed they were -- even God. That's what makes them absolute.

[GAL]

Why can 't R be:good exists?

[SunOfBeach]

not p, my friend. not p.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Discuss problems with my premises..

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously? Your logic is valid, of course. I'll discuss your premises briefly:

¬P
¬Q
¬R

¬[](P --> Q)
¬[](¬R --> ¬Q)

( "[]" = "necessarily" )

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even see why we need the modality--I would think:

~(P --> Q)

and

~(~R --> ~Q)

are both true.

[IronUnkind]

This would be true if "God" were the ontological equivalent of say, your high school vice principal.

[AlphaWice]

Stop trying to use unclear (but correct) logic to confuse people. Its fairly obvious ~R -> ~Q is equivalent to Q -> R (MT). So you have the hypotheses P, P->Q, Q->R, and the conclusion R.

How does the existence of "absolute morality" (whatever that is) imply the existence of "God"?